Institutional Gaps in Managing Multiple European Projects Co-Funded by Public and Private Institutions

• Autorzy: Raluca Vasilache , Madalin Darie
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The purpose of this paper is to compare perceptions on drivers of managing multiple European cofounded projects among public and private institutions from Romania, and determine which dimensions of multi-project management optimization have the greatest impact on institutional financial stability and organizational learning. Data were collected using an online questionnaire administrated to two convenience samples of 100 public institutions, and 100 private organizations from Romania, involved in managing multiple European co-funded projects. Multi-project management optimization was measured using two dimensions: the relational dimension for governance of multiple projects and the regulative dimension. Data were analyzed by using confirmatory factor analysis, ANOVA and linear regression. In the private organizations sample, relational dimension was the most important predictor of organizational learning, while regulative dimension was the most important predictor of financial stability in the sample of public institutions. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Project management; Financial sustainability; Projects financing

PL

Zarządzanie projektem; Stabilność finansowa; Finansowanie projektów

• Czasopismo: Contemporary Economics
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: 12
• Numer: nr 4 Digital Transformations and Value Creation in International Markets
• Strony: 409--418

Twórcy

autor

Raluca Vasilache

• "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Romania

autor

Madalin Darie

• "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Romania

Bibliografia

• Bouckaert, G., Nakrošis, V., & Nemec, J. (2011). Public administration and management reforms in CEE: Main trajectories and results. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 4(1), 9-29.
• Bretschneider, S. (1990). Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50(5), 536-545.
• Caniels, M. C., & Bakens, R. J. (2012). The effects of Project Management Information Systems on decision making in a multi project environment. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 162-175.
• Cats-Baril, W., & Thompson, R. (1995). Managing information technology projects in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 559-566.
• Deac, V., & Vrincut, M. (2013). Qualitative techniques for project management. Quality-Access to Success, 14(133), 82-85.
• Dooley, L., Lupton, G., & O'Sullivan, D. (2005). Multiple project management: A modern competitive necessity. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(5), 466-482.
• Dye, L. D., & Pennypacker, J. S. (2000, September). Project portfolio management and managing multiple projects: Two sides of the same coin? Paper presented at the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, TX.
• Elbanna, A. (2013). Top management support in multiple-project environments: An in-practice view. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 278-294.
• Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The resource allocation syndrome: The prime challenge of multiproject management? International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 403-409.
• Holmes, D. (2001). Egov: Ebusiness Strategies for Government. Naperville, IL: Nicholas Brealey.
• Istrate, L., & Marian, L. (2012). Research on the use of project management in organizational culture change in public administration institutions. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 617-622.
• Jałocha, B., Krane, H. P., Ekambaram, A., & Prawelska-Skrzypek, G. (2014). Key competences of public sector project managers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 247-256.
• Keiser, L. R. (2011). The impact of bureaucratic structure on government eligibility decisions. In: Public Management Research Association Conference. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/061a/115b32213e7750551e08eb127d2fafd05fae.pdf
• Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Klakegg, O. J., Williams, T., & Shiferaw, A. T. (2016). Taming the 'trolls': Major public projects in the making. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), 282-296.
• Ortansa, M. (2012). New public management elements in Romania's public services in the European context. Annals of the University of Oradea Economic Sciences, 1, 115-120.
• Purvis, R. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., & McCray, G. E. (2015). What's in it for me? Using expectancy theory and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its direction and intensity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 3-14.
• Rosacker, K. M., & Olson, D. L. (2008). Public sector information system critical success factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(1), 60-70.
• Tsaturyan, T., & Muller, R. (2015). Integration and governance of multiple project management offices (PMOs) at large organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1098-1110.
• Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2010). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 744-755.
• Wirick, D. (2011). Public-sector project management: meeting the challenges and achieving results. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
• Zaman, G., & Georgescu, G. (2009). Structural fund absorption: A new challenge for Romania? Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 6(1),136-154.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5709/ce.1897-9254.286